God does not play dice

I was thinking about what quantum physics tells us about the indeterminacy of matter....and thinking about Einstein's words and I had a thought. Perhaps it is not down, purely to chance, as to the outcome of a measurement. Maybe it is when looked upon dryly, without any intention but to find the 'particle' in question's velocity or position. But what if that indeterminacy is the realm of intention?

We are lead to believe that in a spiritual setting intention behind an action is more important than the action itself. As the Buddhists would say, the path taken will lead to different fruits.

I wrote a book on intention, purpose and choice in the universe. It simply recognizes WE are part of the equation and our technology is part of nature. It seems obvious, but dualism is deeply seated in our consciousness. However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics. In any proper scientific experiment, the whole point is that our human intentions DO NOT interfer with the results.

I wrote a book on intention, purpose and choice in the universe. It simply recognizes WE are part of the equation and our technology is part of nature. It seems obvious, but dualism is deeply seated in our consciousness. However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics. In any proper scientific experiment, the whole point is that our human intentions DO NOT interfer with the results.

That is what I was trying to say when I wrote; Maybe it is when looked upon dryly, without any intention but to find the 'particle' in question's velocity or position.

Obviously there is no intention, other than to find a particle's velocity or position....

I don't think you need to look in to spirituality to resolve this issue.

It's impossible to know whether Einstein really misunderstood indeterminacy or was deliberately choosing not to do so, but indeterminacy doesn't directly equate to chance. There are logical problems where the only solutions are indeterminate by definition but chance plays no role at all.

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

As an atheist, with a machine-view of conciousness I'm disturbed by having the observer impacting on the observed; as I believe Einstein was also (although he was a theist).

I have never been particularly comfortable with the 'many worlds' theorem for quantum-level outcomes, however...

I do think that this 'model' of the strangeness of quantum-mechanics is one that, on one hand gives us a simple to understand analogy: i.e. every observation determines which actual universe we find ourselves in afterwards - one for every possible quantum outcome.

On the other hand, the human mind is unable to truly deal with the concept of that many universes existing (infinite for all intents & purposes). And doesn't it strike you as somehow messy?

Logged

http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-very-interested-in-hearing-some-halfbaked-theor,11179/ [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

lyner

The idea of ever increasing numbers of alternative universes is very unsatisfactory. It's along the lines of the "Turtles all the way down" explanation used by flat Earth believers. It, literally, opens more doors than it closes so it doesn't help my brain one little bit.

The idea of ever increasing numbers of alternative universes is very unsatisfactory. It's along the lines of the "Turtles all the way down" explanation used by flat Earth believers. It, literally, opens more doors than it closes so it doesn't help my brain one little bit.

Yes, I've never understood why theories are put together that ask more questions than they answer... except that they then keep the subject in question within the realms of 'science' - though it is untestable.

And, before anybody jumps on me for doing the same, I was not offering a theory, but rather a question.

There is clearly a level of indeterminacy and it is explained within current understanding by 'chance' in the form of probability - in response to LeeE's point.

Many phycisists don't like this model, and say things like 'I've always felt there was something not right about quantum physics'... Is it possible that this is because this indeterminacy may very well be beyond the realm of science to decode?

And this may be off the topic, but you ever feel that chance and probability only exist to us because we experience time as a constant moving forward? I'm very tired, so apologies if this sounds a bit stupid.

lyner

However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics.

This is a dodgey area. I think it has been more or less accepted that our choice / decision between options is carried out a fraction of a second before we are aware of it. How or even whether we actually make a decision is probably governed by the same sort of random processes that we observe (in simpler form) in fundamental particle experiments.Our decisions are obviously not all 50 50 but based on a complicated set of weightings but, in the end "shall I go for the red shirt or the green shirt?" results in an arbitrary / random choice which we rationalise and reinforce after the event. This positive feedback mechanism is there to stabilise the system - rather like a Schmidt Trigger is / was used in electronic control systems.Now why did I write that? Creepy ain't it?

And this may be off the topic, but you ever feel that chance and probability only exist to us because we experience time as a constant moving forward? I'm very tired, so apologies if this sounds a bit stupid.

It depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.

If the time dimension is finite in extent, and after all, we have one end-point of it - at the BB 13.4 billion years ago, we could just be passing along a pre-existing time-line. If however, the time dimension is not finite in extent and is expanding, we could be on the boundary of that expansion and constantly moving into 'new' time.

It's interesting to compare this possible extending of time with the extension of space due to the expansion of the universe: with universal expansion, new space is created within an existing space environment that appears to have no boundaries whereas in an expanding time scenario there appear to be clear boundaries, one at the origin and the other at the 'now', and the expansion only occurs at the 'now' boundary.

In the context of people asking "what's outside the universe?, I think that the expanding time scenario illustrates quite nicely how you can have a boundary where nothing needs to exist outside it.

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

lyner

It depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.

Whether or not the future 'exists' in some way 'before' we get to it, doesn't stop it being random. A random sequence of numbers on a page in front of you are still random although you can see the first and last one in the sequence. The definition of a truly random process is one for which the autocorrelation function is a delta function- i.e. the only time the sequence matches itself at all is when it is laid over itself 'in phase'. (Mathematicians - please don't jump on me for that one.)

I think it is fascinating how our brains try to make sense of it all by having conversations like the present one. It's a sort of 'bootstrap' situation. Could we ever suss it out completely? I don't think so. It wouldn't be good for us in any case.

However, our intention has nothing to do with the results that are obtained in particle physics.

This is a dodgey area. I think it has been more or less accepted that our choice / decision between options is carried out a fraction of a second before we are aware of it. How or even whether we actually make a decision is probably governed by the same sort of random processes that we observe (in simpler form) in fundamental particle experiments.Our decisions are obviously not all 50 50 but based on a complicated set of weightings but, in the end "shall I go for the red shirt or the green shirt?" results in an arbitrary / random choice which we rationalise and reinforce after the event. This positive feedback mechanism is there to stabilise the system - rather like a Schmidt Trigger is / was used in electronic control systems.Now why did I write that? Creepy ain't it?

Hmmm... you say this is a "dodgy idea", and then go on to extrapolate some random, pointless and ultimately meaningless choice as if they were the only choices that we make. Do you really consider that real choices that we make are made "a fraction of a second" before we act on them?

It is a "dodgy area" because it deals with a question that cannot and will not be faced by science. And that, I would suggest, is why quantum physcis, what it evidences, will continue to be looked upon by science as 'somehow wrong'.

What is truly a "dodgy idea" is this, that our choices are simply a random collection of 'switches' which we then justify as a choice. We become, then, mere drones, subject to electrical impulses, with no real will at all. That is the ultimate corollary of science without context - of materialism unbounded and ungrounded.

It depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.

Whether or not the future 'exists' in some way 'before' we get to it, doesn't stop it being random. A random sequence of numbers on a page in front of you are still random although you can see the first and last one in the sequence. The definition of a truly random process is one for which the autocorrelation function is a delta function- i.e. the only time the sequence matches itself at all is when it is laid over itself 'in phase'. (Mathematicians - please don't jump on me for that one.)

I think it is fascinating how our brains try to make sense of it all by having conversations like the present one. It's a sort of 'bootstrap' situation. Could we ever suss it out completely? I don't think so. It wouldn't be good for us in any case.

The fact that quantum physics shows us indeterminacy is, as I see it, a great sign that the future is created - it does not already exist

Logged

lyner

Indeterminacy is not, per se, a proof or disproof of whether the future is 'really there' before we get to it.All that indeterminacy really says is that the 'next step' can't be inferred exactly from the present conditions. The same could be said for a list of (truly) random numbers or a recording of a past event. If you were walking down a dark tunnel you would not know that the tunnel in front of you was there all the time or that it was being dug just to keep up with your forward motion. And one must remember that we are only aware of the past, not even the present; our consciousness takes a finite time to be aware of anything - even our decisions.But, as far as we were concerned, it would make no difference.This is yet another of the "what is really happening" questions to which there can't be an answer. Good fun to discuss but I think that's all.

It depends upon whether you believe that the future already exists, and we're just passing through it, or whether the future is created and the 'now' we occupy is on the leading edge of it.

Whether or not the future 'exists' in some way 'before' we get to it, doesn't stop it being random.

Well, in a pre-existing future, it doesn't stop the specific events in the sequence from being random but both each individual event and the sequence of those events will always be the same and therefore certain. For example, if you take an existing sequence of random numbers, such as the lottery numbers for last year, although the values of the numbers are random, neither their sequence or their values will ever change - that sequence has become 100% certain. If the future pre-exists, then that sequence of lottery numbers was always going to be what it turned out to be, even if we didn't know it at the time.

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

Difficult to see how right now, so possibly not, although if we can figure out some of the other stuff i.e. mass, inertia via the HB and gravitons etc. then it might strongly suggest a non-pre-existing and expanding future. Even if it can't be proved, it would be a more consistent solution - sort of more in fitting with the rest of the universe, if you see what I mean. Arguably, it might be more probable. []

« Last Edit: 08/10/2008 04:50:02 by LeeE »

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

lyner

I think we are suffering from our brain-limitation here. If we assume that time is some sort of dimension through which we are moving then our experience will show us things 'as they happen' (i.e. as we move along the path). But the expression 'as they happen' only refers to the variation of events along the timeline. Just like a graph of y = x2, which we can see on a page, we can trace out the parabola with our finger to the point (3,9) or we can predict where it will end up because we can see it all.

Basically I'm saying there is no distinction between the two views. If both models give the same answer then they are equivalent. It's just the way we choose to look at it - coloured by our usual subjective human approach to everything.

I don't think it's a brain-limitation problem, but rather one of our viewpoint. Our brains can quite happily consider the two alternatives discussed so far, and see how they are fundamentally different - it's obtaining proof of one or the other that's the problem.

In view of the fundamental differences between the two alternatives, and even though they may appear to be equivalent to us, from our viewpoint, I think it's unwise to declare that they actually are equivalent without adding the viewpoint qualification.

Furthermore, I don't think that this problem is actually unsolvable. While most people tend to split time from space and treat it differently, this is questionable. For example, one of the seemingly obvious differences between space and time is that we can return to locations in space but we can't return to locations in time. However, if we return to a previously visited location, the place itself will not be the same as it was on the previous visit because it will have changed over time, so although we can move back and forth spatially, we always end up at a new place. Moreover, the idea of returning to a location, or just walking back and forth across a room, while implying both positive and negative movement through a spatial dimension, can be argued to be exclusively forward motion - we never walk backwards when we want to return to a spatial location, or get back to the other side of the room. With no universal reference point, any displacement between two positions can only be regarded as positive - we never consider something to be a negative distance away - it's always a positive distance.

The idea that we can move freely in three dimensions is also a bit misleading in that any movement we make is only ever one-dimensional - if we really moved in two or three dimensions simultaneously, it would mean that we were actually getting bigger - movement results in a line, not an area or a volume.

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

lyner

I'm not sure I agree with your spacial dimension ideas. The fact is that you can move in any of three spacial dimensions. Forward, turn right then turn up. The overall effect may be a simple translation but you got there without going in a straight line. Three dimensions (whether in cartesian, polar or intrinsic coordinates) all involve three possible changes of parameter and the parameters are independent. For example, a straight line, in polar coordinates cannot be achieved by changing only one dimension except when the line passes through the origin.Also, in front or behind you corresponds to two signs of displacement.

Where time is concerned, we have no option about where we are going or in which direction.All this stuff is the basis of cartesian geometry and it is true that, in the wider view (GR and ~Cosmological considerations) the system ceases to be linear and the rate at which we are traveling through time may vary.However, the principles involved still hold.

Although we can move freely through three dimensions we do so only one dimensionally, regardless of whether we move in a straight line or not.

For example, imagine looking down on someone walking from above: they can move forwards, backwards, left or right but because there's no universal reference, and regardless of which direction they are moving in, at any point on their journey they will only be moving in one direction and their course will be a line. It doesn't matter if the line is straight or not - it's a line and it has no area. For a person to move two dimensionally though, their course would have to result in an area, not a line, and the result would be that they'd end up occupying two locations at the same time (and possibly every other location in between) - both the one in front and the one to the side.

If there's a problem, it lies with assigning arbitrary +ve & -ve signs to the displacements - this is just a mathematical abstraction and doesn't work at all well in this instance. If you assign +ve to forward and -ve to backwards are you then a -ve distance away from where you were if you take a step backwards? Furthermore, how far away would you be if you took a step sideways instead of forward or backward? As there's no forward or backwards displacement in this arbitrary measurement system you wouldn't have moved at all.

Think about something in orbit. Regardless of whether it's following a circular or a highly elliptical path, at any point on the orbit it'll only ever be moving in one direction. It's then easy to extend this to non-closed and irregular paths.

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

lyner

We're down to the definition of what a dimension is. It is necessary to use three spatial dimensions in order to describe the layout of things. We have a choice of how we travel in this frame. Yes, you can describe motion as infinitessimal steps 'in a straight line' but that's not relevant to the existence of three spacial dimensions.Vectors 'work' and they involve (any number of) dimensions and signs (+/-). Pythagoras and other methods will tell you how far you have moved if you can describe how you have displaced in a set of steps where you have changed the x,y and z coordinates - including the use of positive and negative motions - this is all well established stuff. You can, of course, travel a long way but achieve a small displacement. Round in a circle or 10 forwards and 10 backwards.

I don't think your description of someone's experience of moving through space is sufficient to allow you to discount the existence of three dimensions as not relevant. I don't see how you can argue that moving through time (whether you want to or not - etc) is just the same as moving 'at will' through the three dimensions we know and love.

I don't think this comes down to the definition of a dimension and neither is it about infinitessimal steps in a straight line. The direction of movement along any course that an object may take, in one, two or three dimensions, is the tangent to the curve at that point - this is a one dimensional vector. Now if you apply a co-ordinate scheme to the space you are working with, you could indeed say that the vector is going in a +ve or -ve direction, but that co-ordinate scheme is arbitrary and could be aligned in any direction - just as 'up' to us here in the U.K. is 'down' to the folks in Australia and at an arbitrary angle to everyone else on the Earth. What actually makes the most sense is to align the co-ordinate system with the tangent and then it's clear that you are only moving in one direction.

Vectors do indeed work - and when when you sum vectors using Pythagoras you get a single vector result. Interestingly, Pythagoras uses squares 'internally' but still produces a one-dimensional answer.

Well, the argument for movement through space being similar to movement through time (and I only said that the difference between them is questionable, not that they were the same) comes down to the displacement resulting from movement always being a +ve value. Stand a bunch of people in a circle, all facing in, and ask them how far away they are from the center - they'll just give an absolute value because there is no universal reference frame. Turn them around so they're facing out and they'll still give the same answer. Direction isn't the same as distance.

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

lyner

That's because the answer is a Scalar and not a vector. Half the information has been lost. Your people in a circle would need to specify actual direction, as a bearing (which implies sign) if they wanted to arrange to meet each other in the centre. Displacement and distance are, of course, not the same thing.

They could not, however, decide to part company in time; nor could they arrange to meet last Tuesday.

Quote

What actually makes the most sense is to align the co-ordinate system with the tangent and then it's clear that you are only moving in one direction.

That would mean that, for two people to arrange to meet somewhere, one of them would have to change his local coordinate system to coincide with the other guy's or they would have no idea how to do it.I still think that you haven't really thought through what dimensions are all about. If you can't move in three independent spatial dimensions then the majority of space is not accessible to you. All you could do is to move along a line or a long curly wurly piece of string. Time is one such straight line and we know that we are limited to traveling along one path, without choice.

I still think that you haven't really thought through what dimensions are all about.

Funnily enough, I think I've spent far too much time thinking through what dimensions are all about. Doesn't mean I'm right, of course:)

Well, as a last attempt at trying to illustrate the point, consider a tangent to a point on a helix, where the helix represents a course, implying direction. At any point along the course the tangent will point in just one direction, through three-dimensional space, so while the space is three-dimensional the movement is not.

..or another last attempt (or two): Get a length of string and wrap it around any 3D object to represent a course around that object. Although the course, represented by the string, moves through three dimensions it only has length but no width or height. Alternatively, and as it doesn't make any difference if the lines are straight or not, get two sheets of A4 paper and draw a straight line parallel to one side on one sheet, representing a course through one dimension, then draw a straight line diagonally across the other sheet, representing a course through two dimensions. Finally, lay one of the sheets on top of the other and align the two lines - the only possible difference between the the two lines is their length.

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

lyner

I hear (read) what you are saying but, irrespective of the coordinate system you use, there are more options for where you can move to than exist on one dimension.

You cannot give another person instructions about how to get from point A to point B without using three dimensions. If you just tell them to fly 20m, they can end up anywhere inside a sphere of 20m radius. That is why we have to use 'dimensions' and coordinates and why you can't ignore them.

On the other hand, you can only tell someone that you will meet them in 6hours' time. Both your clocks will be going at the same rate - in one dimension.

I have a feeling that I have lost your thread. What are you actually trying to say that goes against my two statements above?

I hear (read) what you are saying but, irrespective of the coordinate system you use, there are more options for where you can move to than exist on one dimension.

You cannot give another person instructions about how to get from point A to point B without using three dimensions. If you just tell them to fly 20m, they can end up anywhere inside a sphere of 20m radius. That is why we have to use 'dimensions' and coordinates and why you can't ignore them.

On the other hand, you can only tell someone that you will meet them in 6hours' time. Both your clocks will be going at the same rate - in one dimension.

I have a feeling that I have lost your thread. What are you actually trying to say that goes against my two statements above?

Lol - that's going back a bit. Umm... I think it is that I'm arguing that movement, regardless of how many dimensions it goes through, or in what direction it is, is one dimensional. That is, the movement can be in any direction but the nature of the movement is one dimensional - the course, or path, followed has only length, but no width or height. Movement that was two dimensional, for example, would mean moving both forward and sideways, not as the resulting sum of the two vectors but as two separate discrete movements, which would result in ending up in two different places and the course having width as well as length. It would be like moving your hand to be both in front of you and to the side at the same time - the best we can actually do is to move it diagonally in just one direction.

« Last Edit: 14/10/2008 20:40:21 by LeeE »

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

Does God play dice or big bang ?About dice I know nothing, but about big bang something.

Big bang; Science and Religion. =========== Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter (all elementary particles and all quarks and their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”. And after there was a “Big Bang”. The scientists wrote very thick books about this theory. But nobody wrote the reason of the “Big Bang” because nobody knows it. I know the reason. The action, when the God compresses all Universe into his palm, we have named " a singular point". And action, when the God opens his palm, we have named the "Big Bang". ============ ==============. The Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing. And Pope Pius XII declared this in 1951. http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/ [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]Now we have unity between Religion and Science. Alleluia !!! Alleluia !!! Alleluia !!! But it is strange,…… why cannot we hear the happy sounds of Scenic’s /Church’s bells? =============. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus. =========.

Logged

The secret of 'God' and 'Existence' hide in the “Theory of Light quanta”.

The Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing.Now we have unity between Religion and Science.

Socratus,

Your belief in a higher power, in some ways, must be a great support to you (it isn't one I can share though). One thing I would ask though is don't confuse belief with scientific evidence - even if the church chooses to muddy the waters when they make such claims about 'proof'.

Maybe when mankind has found a way to find common ground between all the differing religions, we can move onto science & religion...

« Last Edit: 15/10/2008 14:45:33 by peppercorn »

Logged

http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-very-interested-in-hearing-some-halfbaked-theor,11179/ [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

The Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing.Now we have unity between Religion and Science.

Socratus,

Your belief in a higher power, in some ways, must be a great support to you (it isn't one I can share though). One thing I would ask though is don't confuse belief with scientific evidence - even if the church chooses to muddy the waters when they make such claims about 'proof'.

Maybe when mankind has found a way to find common ground between all the differing religions, we can move onto science & religion...

===========There are more things in heavenand earth, Horatio, Than aredreamt of in your philosophy. / William Shakespeare /

Logged

The secret of 'God' and 'Existence' hide in the “Theory of Light quanta”.

lyner

LeeEI think that we could agree that one's personal experience of movement may only be one dimensional, in some ways. But our brains can make us aware of the fact that we are moving in more than one dimension - particularly when we are relating ourselves to the motions of other objects.When going in a curve, however, one can be aware of direction of motion AND acceleration in another direction. Chew on that one!!I'm not sure how relevant this is . .. . ?

SophieThat's an interesting point about acceleration - I'll need to let that idea ferment for a bit. There's also rotation to consider, and I'm not sure how that'll work out either - simply summing the static rotation axis produces a static result, which obviously isn't right. Summing dynamic rotation axis is a bit trickier and makes me dizzy.

When thinking about space and time it can be interesting to look at things in the form of a graph where space and time are the axis. With just a single spatial dimension + time the graph area is two dimensional, so a line on that graph would represent movement through two-dimensional space-time. It's easy to visualise extending this to using two spatial dimensions, buy adding another axis and making the graph area three-dimensional, producing a volume. Now any movement through that environment will still come out as a line, but if you view the graph so that the two spatial dimensions are in plan i.e. with the time axis pointing towards you, so that you can't see any changes in that axis, you'll still see a line. The interesting thing is though, when you remember that there's effectively no time axis in this view, the line represents an occupancy, not a movement, and implies that whatever is being plotted occurs simultaneously all along that line. Heh - not sure of the significance of that, but it shows that we need to view the graph from a sum of all three axis to see it in all it's entirety, and also shows why it's difficult, if not impossible, to do so for our four-dimensional space-time.

Nevertheless though, regardless of how many spatial dimensions you plot in, as long as there's only a single time axis, the course will always be a line.

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

lyner

Nevertheless though, regardless of how many spatial dimensions you plot in, as long as there's only a single time axis, the course will always be a line.

That's not a valid conclusion at all. You could only insist that is the case in an infinitesimal time scale. If you are going in a curve you are definitely exploring two cartesian dimensions at the very least.I still think that, when you refer to a dimension, you mean something different from what I understand it to mean.

The graphs you refer to simply show how one variable changes with another. They don't refer to how someone would 'experience' a journey. The slopes and curvatures tell you about displacements, velocities and accelerations so they give you an idea of what the journey would have been like - that's all.Two independent travellers would only bump into each other if ALL the coordinates were the same, at some point in the four dimensional graph - i.e. the lines / curves intersect somewhere /somewhen. You and I have probably walked past Piccadilly Tube station but on different days - so we didn't see each other.(I even wore a carnation, specially, so you would recognise me!) I certainly didn't travel in a straight line to get there and neither did you.

Nevertheless though, regardless of how many spatial dimensions you plot in, as long as there's only a single time axis, the course will always be a line.

That's not a valid conclusion at all. You could only insist that is the case in an infinitesimal time scale. If you are going in a curve you are definitely exploring two cartesian dimensions at the very least.I still think that, when you refer to a dimension, you mean something different from what I understand it to mean.

The graphs you refer to simply show how one variable changes with another. They don't refer to how someone would 'experience' a journey. The slopes and curvatures tell you about displacements, velocities and accelerations so they give you an idea of what the journey would have been like - that's all.Two independent travellers would only bump into each other if ALL the coordinates were the same, at some point in the four dimensional graph - i.e. the lines / curves intersect somewhere /somewhen. You and I have probably walked past Piccadilly Tube station but on different days - so we didn't see each other.(I even wore a carnation, specially, so you would recognise me!) I certainly didn't travel in a straight line to get there and neither did you.

I can't see how you can claim that it's not a valid conclusion that a course through n-dimensions, with just one time dimension, will not be a line. For it to be an area would require being in two separate locations simultaneously i.e. being in two places at the same time.

Perhaps that's why we didn't meet up outside Piccadilly tube - you weren't there when I was because you can only be in one place at a time. If your course was two-dimensional though, and had area as well as length, you could have been there when I was, even though you were somewhere else at the time. Mind you, I didn't know you the last time I was at Piccadilly tube, so I wouldn't have recognised you anyway, even if I had noted the carnation. Actually, I almost certainly would have noticed you because not many people walk around with a can of condensed milk pinned to their lapel, or behind their ear for that matter.

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

lyner

I think I misunderstood your last post. Yes your path is a line - just not a straight one - and the line can involve variations in three spatial dimensions and a steady rate of progress in the t dimension / axis.The three spatial dimensions are necessary in order that you, I and everyone does not turn up at the same place all the time.

I think I misunderstood your last post. Yes your path is a line - just not a straight one - and the line can involve variations in three spatial dimensions and a steady rate of progress in the t dimension / axis.The three spatial dimensions are necessary in order that you, I and everyone does not turn up at the same place all the time.

Heh - without the spatial dimensions there wouldn't be anywhere else for us to turn up from - we'd already be there and would always have been there. Just imagine - you'd never be late for anything []

Just one point though - from Relativity, the rate of progress along the time axis isn't steady but depends upon the rate of progress along the spatial axis. At least, the dependency seems to be that way around.

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

Truthfulness, as to the existence of other parallel universes is unknowable, as judged from scientific deduction. The possibility of other universes is the product of intellectual speculation, not concrete fact. We should focus upon the known, rather than that what can be inferred from clearly limited information; which is subject to new knowledge. In fact, all of our knowledge about the known universe is subject to changing opinions. Theories, grounded upon established science is fine, as far as that goes, yet to suggest that such theories correspond to verifiable facts, or reality departs from any notion of valid science. This discussion should be framed in the context of speculative science, no less, no more. This discussion qualifies as philosophy; a point of view, grounded in a broad scientific understanding, but not concrete science. This distinction must be made clear, if we hope to differentiate between that which is knowable, in any realistic sense, and that which is not. Knowledge about the properties of the universe are, as all science, provisional, therefore theories as to other universes are, at best speculative, and operate within the domain of philosophical and scientific speculation. I do not question the validity of this effort. What I do question is the framing, or lack of, regarding such issues.

Logged

lyner

We should focus upon the known, rather than that what can be inferred from clearly limited information

On what authority do you say that?You sound like an accountant advising his company to invest in mainstream technology because it's safe.If you can't think outside the box where will the revolutionary ideas come from?

Truthfulness, as to the existence of other parallel universes is unknowable, as judged from scientific deduction. The possibility of other universes is the product of intellectual speculation, not concrete fact.

Are you just saying that we can only prove the existence of the n-dimensional set that we occupy, but no others, or are you saying that the possibility of other sets is purely speculative? The rules and relationships that hold for our set do not preclude the existence of other sets, so their possibility is not speculative. It is only the proof of their existence that is in doubt.

Quote

We should focus upon the known, rather than that what can be inferred from clearly limited information; which is subject to new knowledge.

First of all, why? And secondly, where does the new knowledge, which qualifies the preceding statement, come from if everyone is only looking at what is already known?

Quote

In fact, all of our knowledge about the known universe is subject to changing opinions.

All of our knowledge about the known universe is subject to new knowledge, not opinion, but then I suppose that if everyone is only thinking about already known knowledge there will be no new knowledge and opinion will have to suffice.

Quote

Theories, grounded upon established science is[are] fine, as far as that[they] goes[go], yet to suggest that such theories correspond to verifiable facts[,] or reality departs from any notion of valid science.

Sorry - I had trouble parsing that and I may have mis-corrected what you wrote, changing it's meaning. However, the hypothesis discussed here does conform to scientific knowledge, where scientific knowledge includes the understanding of something and does not just mean it's measurement.

Quote

This discussion should be framed in the context of speculative science, no less, no more.

This is fair enough. All science is speculative until proved. The theories of Relativity are good examples of this - do you consider the theories of Relativity to be science? Would you have considered them to be science before they were proved?

Quote

This discussion qualifies as philosophy; a point of view, grounded in a broad scientific understanding, but not concrete science.

I would agree that this discussion qualifies as philosophy but that doesn't preclude it from being science - the two are not mutually exclusive. Purely a point of view it is not. The discussion conforms to the observed characteristics and laws of acknowledged geometries. Concrete science - is this just already known knowledge again?

Quote

This distinction must be made clear, if we hope to differentiate between that which is knowable, in any realistic sense, and that which is not.

The number of examples which prove this statement to be wrong are innumerable - just one at random - Televisions cannot exist because the ancient Egyptians could not conceive the mechanism by which they work.

Quote

Knowledge about the properties of the universe are, as all science, provisional, therefore theories as to other universes are, at best speculative, and operate within the domain of philosophical and scientific speculation.

I agree with this - without proof everything is speculation. That is not the same as impossible though.

Quote

I do not question the validity of this effort. What I do question is the framing, or lack of, regarding such issues.

As we were obviously discussing something about which we have no proof, a disclaimer seemed unnecessary.

« Last Edit: 11/11/2008 18:42:29 by LeeE »

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

Re: Sophiecentaur, "On what authority do you say that?". I do not speak from a position of authority. I would suggest there is no absolute authority relating to these issues. Theories grounded upon fact are one thing, theories generated from other theories are the very definition of speculative thought, and therefore qualify as mental exercises; speculative science, befitting philosophical thought. I do not question that kind of exercise, if it is properly framed as such.

Re: LeeE, The so-call rules you reference are far from complete, or well-defined. Until we discover a primary rule that unifies and logical integrates all of the other rules, we cannot proceed to meaningfully speculate as to their potential theoretical ramifications.

You ask, why should we focus upon the known? Clearly, knowledge that is consistent and verifiable is the starting point from which any meaningful theory can be generated. Surely, you are not suggesting we should focus; utilize, as the bases of our theories or reasonable and logical speculations, information from pure speculation and imagination. Any theory, or reasonable speculation, must relate back, in valid scientific understanding, to established and verifiable knowledge, to take on meaning, in any scientific sense.

You stated, "All of our knowledge about the known universe is subject to new knowledge, not opinion, but then I suppose that if everyone is only thinking about already known knowledge there will be no new knowledge and opinion will have to suffice." My point is that our knowledge about the known universe is constantly changing, as well as the so called rules of the universe. New information is being routinely introduced. Therefore theories or reasonable speculation based on present information, are or necessity, limited, and do not, cannot reflect a complete or accurate picture.

You said, "Sorry - I had trouble parsing that and I may have mis-corrected what you wrote, changing it's meaning. However, the hypothesis discussed here does conform to scientific knowledge, where scientific knowledge includes the understanding of something and does not just mean it's measurement". Scientific "opinion" relating to this topic is scientific only to the degree that the theories referenced have a foundation in established scientific understanding and knowledge; consistent and verifiable. Until such theories relate to established science, they remain in the realm of philosophical and scientific speculation, and must be framed thusly.

You stated, "This is fair enough. All science is speculative until proved. The theories of Relativity are good examples of this - do you consider the theories of Relativity to be science? Would you have considered them to be science before they were proved?". This is an excellent question, in my opinion. In the first place, as to whether a particular theory is science depends upon the ability of the "reviewer" to fully comprehend that which is offered. If the theory is grounded upon sound principles, and is internally consistent, the theory may well qualify as science, but only in a theoretical sense. Elements of the theory of relativity have been established, through observation. What distinguishes Einstein's theory or relativity from theories, as to the existence of parallel universes, is that his theories are bases upon real world observations, not other theories. I would have considered the theory of relative as science, but framed as a reasonable and logical theory, no less, no more.

You stated, "I would agree that this discussion qualifies as philosophy but that doesn't preclude it from being science - the two are not mutually exclusive. Purely a point of view it is not. The discussion conforms to the observed characteristics and laws of acknowledged geometries. Concrete science - is this just already known knowledge again?". Science and philosophy are mutually exclusive. Why? Philosophy is not grounded upon established and verifiable knowledge. That is precisely why it is philosophy, not science. Science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive when the relevant philosophy rises, through scientific verification, to scientific certainty. The philosophy of science denotes a particular view, or interpretation of established science, or reasonable speculation as to what such science may mean or lead to. They are, clearly, distinct categories of cognition. This fact is surely obvious.

You stated, "The number of examples which prove this statement to be wrong are innumerable - just one at random - Televisions cannot exist because the ancient Egyptians could not conceive the mechanism by which they work". You example does not speak to what I stated, "This distinction must be made clear, if we hope to differentiate between that which is knowable, in any realistic sense, and that which is not". I indicated this discussion qualifies as philosophy; scientific speculation, not concrete science. You example, as to what the Egyptians could not conceive, is not relevant. The inability to conceive a parallel universe, is not the result of limited scientific understanding, as one could apply to the ancient Egyptians. Again, theories based upon other theories, are not reliable, and fail to relate to established knowledge, and are therefore speculative, in the extreme.

You stated, "I agree with this - without proof everything is speculation. That is not the same as impossible though". Sure, the thought may not be impossible, that is not at issue. What is at issue is the probability, bases upon sound science, not speculation, no matter how cognitively reasonable. The mere fact that a thing can be conceived, even in scientific terms, does not accord validity to it's possibility.

You stated, "As we were obviously discussing something about which we have no proof, a disclaimer seemed unnecessary". I am pleased you admit to the fact that "we have no proof". Does this statement not accord with my position? Lack of proof is consistent with my position that, "Truthfulness, as to the existence of other parallel universes is unknowable, as judged from scientific deduction". In summery, until the "rules" that govern the operation of the universe are well established and verifiable, theories and, reasonable and logical speculation, which are internally consistent, cannot be scientifically generated, and adjudged as valid.

My first reaction to your reply was that you want to win an argument. The reason for this is that you've extrapolated my answers to suit this aim...

Quote

The so-call[ed] rules you reference are far from complete, or well-defined.

Well, I didn't reference or identify any specific rules - your objection thus only fits your agenda. If you had queried what those rules were, before claiming they were "far from complete, or well[ill]-defined" then we would have something I might be interested in discussing. As it is though, I think you've given away your position and attitude, which is something I have no interest in disputing.

Reading further, my first impression was reinforced...

Quote

Surely, you are not suggesting we should focus; utilize, as the bases of our theories or reasonable and logical speculations, information from pure speculation and imagination.

Once again, you've extrapolated a response beyond it's literal meaning to fit your point of view. The technique you've tried to get away with using here is the argument that if something is not black then it must be white. The things discussed in this thread were neither pure speculation or imagination and neither were they black or white. Trying to represent them as such may work some sometimes, with some folk, but not this time and not here.

I will not spend time refuting the arguments you offer to support your point of view because I don't need to. This is not because I think they are wrong, which doesn't mean that I think they are right, but because the point you want to make seems to be that I shouldn't be thinking about the things that I've been thinking about. While I acknowledge the fact that you think this to be the case, you haven't come anywhere near convincing me that I should stop doing what I am doing.

What, exactly, were you trying to achieve that you thought that your reply would bring it about? Is it really just that you believe that what we were discussing is not, or should not qualify as, science?

Logged

...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

"Does God play dice with the universe?" Must we not firstly define certain terms, in order to attempt to answer this question? What is God; in terms of direct understanding, and what is the universe; in terms of our obviously limited understanding? When Einstein firstly asked this question, his understanding of the universe, based upon observation and theory, is significantly different than the current understanding; based upon observation and theory. More to the point, Einstein's question, as I understand it, is fundamentally rhetorical; indicating, in fact, as judged from observation, and sound, verifiable theory, that "God" does not, can not, play dice with the universe. If God played dice with the universe, implying complete randomness, Einstein, or no one else could have discovered, or derive theories, sufficient to characterize "Laws," or principles that govern physical events; locally or celestially. God is a convenient religious explanation for the primary element that started the whole process. Yet God is, for most of us, illusive, and unknowable. As well, the universe is a vast mystery, subject to continuous reinterpretation, as judged from new information. As such, the adherence to theories, as to unknowable, and purely speculative dimensions, fall well into the imaginary realm of fiction, or wishful thinking.